GARCILLANO V HOR Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

170338 December 23, 2008

VIRGILIO O. GARCILLANO, petitioner, vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY, INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, and SUFFRAGE AND ELECTORAL REFORMS, respondents. x----------------------x G.R. No. 179275 December 23, 2008

SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA and OSWALDO D. AGCAOILI, petitioners, vs. THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT THE HONORABLE MANUEL VILLAR, respondents. x----------------------x MAJ. LINDSAY REX SAGGE, petitioner-in-intervention x----------------------x AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., BENIGNO NOYNOY C. AQUINO, RODOLFO G. BIAZON, PANFILO M. LACSON, LOREN B. LEGARDA, M.A. JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, and ANTONIO F. TRILLANES, respondentsintervenors DECISION NACHURA, J.: More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They captured unprecedented public attention and thrust the country into a controversy that placed the legitimacy of the present administration on the line, and resulted in the near-collapse of the Arroyo government. The tapes, notoriously referred to as the "Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly contained the President’s instructions to COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the 2004 presidential elections. These recordings were to become

a lengthy debate ensued when Senator Richard Gordon aired his concern on the possible transgression of Republic Act (R.R. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Reynaldo Wycoco. then Minority Floor Leader Francis G. when’s. He prayed that the respondent House Committees be restrained from using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained" wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose. and the respondent House Committees directed to desist from further using the recordings in any of the House proceedings. where’s. On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan. they decided to prepare committee reports based on the said recordings and the testimonies of the resource persons. However.1 In the House of Representatives (House).5 Without reaching its denouement. 2005. After more than two years of quiescence. After prolonged and impassioned debate by the committee members on the admissibility and authenticity of the recordings. on June 8. 170338.the subject of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by committees of both Houses of Congress.3 Alarmed by these developments. 2005. possession. "Tale of Two Tapes. Senator Lacson promised to provide the public "the whole unvarnished truth – the what’s. . Escudero delivered a privilege speech. the House discussion and debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly stopped. Atty. 42008 if the body were to conduct a legislative inquiry on the matter.) No. "The Lighthouse That Brought Darkness. During the inquiry. No. petitioner Virgilio O.2 On August 3. 2007. with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction4docketed as G. Information and Communications Technology.A. who’s and why’s" of the alleged wiretap. the tapes were eventually played in the chambers of the House. chaired by Senator Rodolfo Biazon. Nevertheless. articulating her considered view that the Constitution absolutely bans the use. 2005. Alan Paguia and the lawyer of former NBI Deputy Director Samuel Ong submitted to the respondent House Committees seven alleged "original" tape recordings of the supposed three-hour taped conversation. Garcillano (Garcillano) filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction. and sought an inquiry into the perceived willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious wiretapping activities. replay or communication of the contents of the "Hello Garci" tapes. National Defense and Security. But on July 5. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago delivered a privilege speech. On August 28. Senator Lacson’s speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security. Public Order and Safety." and set in motion a congressional investigation jointly conducted by the Committees on Public Information." In his discourse.7 In the Senate’s plenary session the following day. He further implored that the said recordings and any reference thereto be ordered stricken off the records of the inquiry. who had previously filed two bills6 seeking to regulate the sale. and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (respondent House Committees). several versions of the wiretapped conversation emerged. purchase and use of wiretapping equipment and to prohibit the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from performing electoral duties. Senator Panfilo Lacson roused the slumbering issue with a privilege speech. the respondent House Committees decided to suspend the hearings indefinitely.

and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. 179275.9 On September 6.20 we explained that "‘[l]egal standing’ or locus standi refers to a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury because of the challenged governmental act x x x. petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili. Rodolfo G. 2007. seeking to bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry. Madrigal and Antonio F. moved to intervene as petitioner in G. G. Maj.11 As the Court did not issue an injunctive writ.17 On October 26. argued at length in their pleadings. the Court shall first resolve the issue on the parties’ standing. Pimentel. Intervening as respondents. Lacson.. Legarda.A.A." thus. 2007. In Tolentino v. The Court dismisses the first petition. the Senate proceeded with its public hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes on September 7.12 1713 and October 1.19 It may be noted that while both petitions involve the "Hello Garci" recordings.R. They argued in the main that the intended legislative inquiry violates R. a member of the ISAFP and one of the resource persons summoned by the Senate to appear and testify at its hearings. No. and grants the second. No. Trillanes filed their Comment16 on the petition on September 25. Biazon.18 On November 20. they have different objectives–the first is poised at preventing the playing of the tapes in the House and their subsequent inclusion in the committee reports. Article III of the Constitution. Jr. filed before this Court a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Lindsay Rex Sagge.R. 2007. 170338 and 179275. Panfilo M. No. Benigno Noynoy C. The Court subsequently heard the case on oral argument. 179275. generally.R. a party will be allowed to litigate only when (1) he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government.14 2007. M.10 docketed as G. and the second seeks to prohibit and stop the conduct of the Senate inquiry on the wiretapped conversation. Loren B. 2007. Aquino. (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action. the Philippine National Police or other government entities in the alleged illegal wiretapping of public officials.R. Nos.21 . No. Jamby A. 4200 and Section 3. -IBefore delving into the merits of the case.S.15 Senators Aquilino Q. 179275. 170338. retired justices of the Court of Appeals.she recommended a legislative investigation into the role of the Intelligence Service of the AFP (ISAFP). COMELEC. G.R. the Court resolved to consolidate G. No.

They are worried by the continuous violation of the laws and individual rights. the Court."22 However. 179275. He further intervenes as a taxpayer bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of public funds involved in the conduct of the questioned hearings. Jr. Jr.27 Obviously. allowing ordinary citizens. The House of Representatives. Further. petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili justify their standing by alleging that they are concerned citizens. 170338.31 we find sufficient petitioners Ranada’s and Agcaoili’s and intervenor Sagge’s allegation that the continuous conduct by the Senate of the questioned legislative inquiry will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. The Court recognizes his standing to institute the petition for prohibition. and members of the IBP. yet the Court . but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation. petitioner Garcillano stands to be directly injured by the House committees’ actions and charges of electoral fraud. They are of the firm conviction that any attempt to use the "Hello Garci" tapes will further divide the country.29 Given that petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili allege an interest in the execution of the laws and that intervenor Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process. had been injured by the alleged unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives.The gist of the question of standing is whether a party has "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.32 It should be noted that inFrancisco. regulations and rulings. taxpayers.R. to challenge the acts of the Secretary of Justice and the National Telecommunications Commission. In G.30 they satisfy the requisite personal stake in the outcome of the controversy by merely being citizens of the Republic."24 The fairly recent Chavez v. rights personal to then Chief Justice Hilario G. petitioner Garcillano justifies his standing to initiate the petition by alleging that he is the person alluded to in the "Hello Garci" tapes. considering that locus standi is a mere procedural technicality. They wish to see the legal and proper use of public funds that will necessarily be defrayed in the ensuing public hearings. has relaxed the stringent direct injury test. his was publicly identified by the members of the respondent committees as one of the voices in the recordings. No. and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws."26 In G. The majority. in the said case. Davide. members of Congress. therefore. and that they have not abused the discretion given to them. who failed to allege a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. in keeping with the Court’s duty under the 1987 Constitution to determine whether or not other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws. Macapagal-Arroyo23 articulates that a "liberal policy has been observed. echoed the current policy that "this Court has repeatedly and consistently refused to wield procedural barriers as impediments to its addressing and resolving serious legal questions that greatly impact on public interest. in recent cases. Gonzales25 even permitted a non-member of the broadcast media. David v. and the blatant attempt to abuse constitutional processes through the conduct of legislative inquiries purportedly in aid of legislation. v. Following the Court’s ruling in Francisco. No.28 Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to attend the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.R.

Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies. No. and should be resolved for the guidance of all. the Court recognizes the legal standing of petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili and intervenor Sagge. He likewise prays that the said tapes be stricken off the records of the House proceedings. dismisses G. . and members of the bar and of the legal profession–which were also supposedly violated by the therein assailed unconstitutional acts. citizens. A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale. and not intended to provide a remedy for an act already accomplished. the issuance of an injunctive writ to prohibit the respondent House Committees from playing the tape recordings and from including the same in their committee report. prohibition is a preventive remedy to restrain the doing of an act about to be done. in the nature of things. as in this case.39 There is also the widely publicized fact that the committee reports on the "Hello Garci" inquiry were completed and submitted to the House in plenary by the respondent committees. petitioner Garcillano implores from the Court.R. we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial determination.R. The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure.36 Neither will the Court determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.38 In G. a reading of the petition in G. however.R. in the exercise of its sound discretion and given the liberal attitude it has shown in prior cases climaxing in the more recent case of Chavez.35 By actual cases.granted standing to the petitioners therein for. 179275 shows that the petitioners and intervenor Sagge advance constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness.R. cannot be enforced. in clear derogation of the constitutional requirement. members of Congress.III As to the petition in G. The issues are of transcendental and paramount importance not only to the public but also to the Bench and the Bar. The power of judicial inquiry does not extend to hypothetical questions because any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. No. No. they invariably invoked the vindication of their own rights–as taxpayers. No. . the Garcillano petition has to be dismissed for being moot and academic. 34 Thus. 170338 for being moot and academic. the Court grants the same. But the Court notes that the recordings were already played in the House and heard by its members.40 Having been overtaken by these events. individually or in a class suit. not conjectural or anticipatory.33 Likewise. After all. 170338.37 It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or. for otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to an advisory opinion. 179275. novelty and weight as precedents.II The Court. as aforementioned.41 .

we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. twelve of whom are elected every three years for a term of six years each. are therefore. Thus. for it will be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever. not even a constructive one. the term of twelve Senators expires every three years." We quote the OSG’s explanation: The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. Not having published its Rules of Procedure. The consequence is that the Rules of Procedure must be republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of twelve Senators. Recently.Section 21. No. like the 1935 Constitution. which provides that "[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette. The 1987 Constitution. or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. procedurally infirm.47 The subject was explained with greater lucidity in our Resolution48 (On the Motion for Reconsideration) in the same case. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[t]he Senate or the House of Representatives.42 Publication is indeed imperative. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations.R.: . reinforces this ruling with the following rationalization: The present Senate under the 1987 Constitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. leaving less than a majority of Senators to continue into the next Congress. The present Senate has twenty-four members. requires a majority of Senators to "constitute a quorum to do business.45 With respect to the present Senate of the 14th Congress. no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session."44 The respondents in G. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on oral argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006. or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership. Nazareno. the Senate under the 1987 Constitution is not a continuing body because less than majority of the Senators continue into the next Congress. Carpio. of which the term of half of its members commenced on June 30. however. the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate. Justice Antonio T. the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the "duly published rules of procedure. 2007. In Neri v.43 What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code. in his Dissenting and Concurring Opinion. viz.46 we said: Fourth." Applying the same reasoning in Arnault v." The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process.

as a matter of course. the Senate’s main rules of procedure) states: RULE LI AMENDMENTS TO. of the Senate of a particular Congress are considered terminated upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished matters. Certainly. This dichotomy of the continuity of the Senate as an institution and of the opposite nature of the conduct of its business is reflected in its Rules. At the start of each session in which the Senators elected in the preceding elections shall begin their term of office. 123. The Rules may also be amended by means of a motion which should be presented at least one day before its consideration. If the Senate is a continuing body even with respect to the conduct of its business. but may be taken by the succeeding Congress as if present for the first time. there is no debate that the Senate as an institution is "continuing.On the nature of the Senate as a "continuing body. Undeniably from the foregoing. 136. and the vote of the majority of the Senators present in the session shall be required for its approval." as it is not dissolved as an entity with each national election or change in the composition of its members. the President may endorse the Rules to the appropriate committee for amendment or revision. Unfinished business at the end of the session shall be taken up at the next session in the same status.e. then pending matters will not be deemed terminated with the expiration of one Congress but will. All pending matters and proceedings shall terminate upon the expiration of one (1) Congress. The logic and practicality of such a rule is readily apparent considering that the Senate of the succeeding Congress (which will typically have a different composition as that of the previous Congress) should not be bound by the acts and deliberations of the Senate of which they had no part. continue into the next Congress with the same status. OR REVISIONS OF. The Rules of the Senate (i. THE RULES SEC. RULE LII DATE OF TAKING EFFECT . not in the same status. The Rules of the Senate itself confirms this when it states: RULE XLIV UNFINISHED BUSINESS SEC. in the conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of each Congress acts separately and independently of the Senate of the Congress before it. unpassed bills and even legislative investigations. but as if presented for the first time.." this Court sees fit to issue a clarification. all pending matters and proceedings. However. i.e.

without more. The language of Section 21. The organic law instructs. and does not make any distinction whether or not these rules have undergone amendments or revision. Tuvera ruling which requires publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and. is not sufficient under the Tañada v.49 The Court does not agree. that the Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation only in accordance with duly published rules of procedure. However. The Rules simply state "(t)hese Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. In view of the difference in the language of the two sets of Senate rules. Publication in accordance with Tañada is mandatory to comply with the due process requirement because . It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice. Such language is conspicuously absent from theRules." precluding any other form of publication. it could have easily adopted the same language it had used in its main rules regarding effectivity.SEC. 137. If it was the intention of the Senate for its present rules on legislative inquiries to be effective even in the next Congress. practice or tradition followed by the Senate. and accessible to the public at the Senate’s internet web page. The Senate of the next Congress may easily adopt different rules for its legislative inquiries which come within the rule on unfinished business. or in pamphlet form available at the Senate." The latter does not explicitly provide for the continued effectivity of such rules until they are amended or repealed. The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21. Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. Article VI of the Constitution. it cannot be presumed that the Rules (on legislative inquiries) would continue into the next Congress. Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes into account the new composition of the Senate after an election and the possibility of the amendment or revision of the Rules at the start of each session in which the newly elected Senators shall begin their term. These Rules shall take effect on the date of their adoption and shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed. The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom. it is evident that the Senate has determined that its main rules are intended to be valid from the date of their adoption until they are amended or repealed. despite that. they are published in booklet form available to anyone for free. The Rules of Procedure even provide that the rules "shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Justice Carpio’s response to the same argument raised by the respondents is illuminating: The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the Senate.

ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice . Given this discussion. The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R. Let a writ of prohibition be issued enjoining the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines and/or any of its committees from conducting any inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the "Hello Garci" tapes. the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents. A person who violates the Rules of Procedure could be arrested and detained by the Senate. the Senate caused the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October 31. the legislative investigation subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate Committees. SO ORDERED.R.the Rules of Procedure put a person’s liberty at risk. the respondent Senate Committees. in violation of the Constitution. rules and regulations. therefore. While we take judicial notice of this fact. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T.R. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. because no published rules governed it. 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. Insofar as the consolidated cases are concerned. No. because it can do so only "in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. WHEREFORE.50 otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. PUNO Chief Justice LEONARDO A. 170338 is DISMISSED. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. the Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in the consolidated petitions. use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. 8792.A. the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. in clear contravention of the Constitution. No. could not." Very recently. CARPIO Associate Justice CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. NACHURA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. No.52 It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws. the petition in G. R. 179275 is GRANTED. With the foregoing disquisition.A. and the petition in G.51 In other words. to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect.

pp. No. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. 170338). REYES Associate Justice ARTURO D. Whether the petitioners have locus standi to bring this suit. 179275). JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. BRION Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. 169-170. 8 An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communications and for Other Purposes. 4 Id. 13 Id. No.* RENATO C. 5 Id. 1 Rollo (G. The Court identified the following issues for discussion in the October 2. 10 Id. Whether the Rules of Procedure of the Senate and the Senate Committees governing the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation have been published. at 71-90. 7 Id. at 7-13.R. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. PUNO Chief Justice Footnotes * On leave. 3 Id. at 62. 215-220. VELASCO. 2. 12 Id. p. Article VIII of the Constitution. 14 Memorandum of Respondents-Intervenors. 9 Rollo (G. CORONA Associate Justice ADOLFO S. 179275). at 36-38. at 44. 6. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. 68-70. at 3-17. at 1-38. at 9. 168. 2 Rollo (G. .R. No. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice RUBEN T. REYNATO S. 2007 Oral Argument: 1. No. at 24. 15 Rollo (G. 16 Id. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. pp. Corollarily: (a) Whether these Rules must be published by every Congress. 11 Id. 179275).R. p. 6 Rollo (G. at 169. 179275). No. 17 Id. pp. pp.R. Article VI of the Constitution. in accordance with Section 21. 7-9.R.

465 Phil. and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case. 157033. 549 SCRA 77. 2006. 3. February 15. which is centered on the so-called "Garci tapes.. Romulo. . 171483. 34 Kilosbayan. 385.R. 20 465 Phil. Memorandum of Respondents-Intervenors. May 3. p. March 4. 220 Phil. 171485. Penalties for Unlawful Use Thereof and For Other Purposes. No. 49 TSN. namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case. 37 Rufino v. 200 entitled "Providing for the Publication of Laws Either in the Official Gazette or in a Newspaper of General Circulation in the Philippines as a Requirement for their Effectivity". Oral Arguments. 180643. 38 Lanuza. 139. March 28. 179. This case explains the standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the power of judicial review.(b) What mode/s of publication will comply with the constitutional requirement. 2006. COMELEC. 48 Dated September 4. G.R. 33 Francisco.R. No.R. 2005.) 18 Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition-in-Intervention filed on October 26. No. 28 Rollo (G. G. 171400. id. 413-414. 22 Province of Batangas v.R. 1994. id. 135-136. v. 2004. No. 168338. 100150. 36 La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association. 47 Id. p. 2008. 9-10. id. 30 David v. 170338.R.R. Article III of the Constitution and/or Republic Act No. no closure" by Michael Lim Umbac published in The Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 29. Ramos. at 223. 171409. Yuchengco. Inc. 26 Id. v.. (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question. 4. pp. 830 (2003). March 25. 369. 21 Tolentino v. 402 (2004). 2008. The House of Representatives. at 66. p. 454 SCRA 130. 2006. 36-37." violates Section 3. Inc. 35 Dumlao v. 84 Phil. 135-136. (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity. 1996 ed. 860. No. 46 G. No. Endriga. Jr. A Commentary. G. Tuvera. 515. (Id. 45 Rollo (G. The House of Representatives. No. 39 Rollo (G. 2008. Jr. at 895. at 218. 50 Entitled "An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use of Electronic Commercial and Non-Commercial Transactions and Documents. supra note 31. 31 460 Phil. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. G. 229 SCRA 117. 23 G. 755.R. No. 179275). 517 (1949). (G. 24 David v. 889-890 (2004).R. v. 138. Agustin v. May 27. Jr. Guingona. 171489 and 171424. 179275). May 5. News item "5 House committees in ‘Garci’ probe file report on Monday" published in The Manila Bulletin on March 25. Nos. July 21. Nos. v. 44 As amended on June 18. 139554 and 139565. 545 SCRA 441. 232 SCRA 110. Macapagal-Arroyo. supra note 23. 27 Reply in G. 42 Bernas. 19 Resolution dated November 20. 170338). 1994. 9. 29 Petition-in-Intervention. Commission on Human Rights. 2007.R. 43 Tañada v.R. v. 113375. 179275). 25 G. G. 32 Francisco. 2000. January 5. pp. v. pp. No. 3. p. 2008.R. Whether the inquiry. 432-433 (1985). 679. at 897. De la Fuente. p." approved on June 14. 429 SCRA 736. 171396. Jr. 1987 by Executive Order No. Jr. Macapagal-Arroyo. Commission on Elections. 2007. 152774. No. 489 SCRA 160. 2006. 184 Phil. 422. 41 Simon. 4200. 496 SCRA 13. at 297-298. 40 See news article "Separate findings. No. 46.R. 377 (1980).

Sec. and – (a) Where the law requires a document to be in writing. and can be authenticated so as to be usable for subsequent reference. Sec. and (b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the information was generated and in the light of all relevant circumstances. (c) Where the law requires that a document be presented or retained in its original form. G. 536 SCRA 408. No. . 10.51 MCC Industrial Sales Corporation v. Original Documents. in that – (i) The electronic document has remained complete and unaltered. or that it is merely referred to in that electronic data message. (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the information not being presented or retained in its original form. – Electronic documents shall have the legal effect. that requirement is met by an electronic document if the said electronic document maintains its integrity and reliability. and (ii) The electronic document is reliable in the light of the purpose for which it was generated and in the light of all the relevant circumstances.A. validity or enforceability as any other document or legal writing. storage and display. This Act does not modify any statutory rule relating to the admissibility of electronic data messages or electronic documents. storage and display. – (1) Where the law requires information to be presented or retained in its original form.Information shall not be denied legal effect. an electronic document shall be the functional equivalent of a written document under existing laws. or any change which arises in the normal course of communication. and (b) Where it is required that information be presented. 7 and 10 of R. Ssangyong Corporation. 8792 read: Sec. 2007. as an electronic data message or electronic document is shown by evidence aliunde or otherwise. That no provision of this Act shall apply to vary any and all requirements of existing laws on formalities required in the execution of documents for their validity. 6. (3) For the purposes of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1): (a) the criteria for assessing integrity shall be whether the information has remained complete and unaltered.) 52 Sections 6. . that the information is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented. validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect. that requirement is met by an electronic data message or electronic document if: (a) The integrity of the information from the time when it was first generated in its final form. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any authorized change. October 15. No. Legal Recognition of Data Messages. 7. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents. except the rules relating to authentication and best evidence. (Emphasis supplied. 170633. apart from the addition of any endorsement and any change which arises in the normal course of communication. and (ii) That document is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it is to be presented: Provided. that requirement is met by an electronic document if – (i) There exists a reliable assurance as to the integrity of the document from the time when it was first generated in its final form.R. For evidentiary purposes. (b) Paragraph (a) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for the document not being presented or retained in its original form.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful